Search

Importance: Several state Medicaid agencies have transitioned from traditional fee-for-service to a value-centric alternative payment model (APM) to reimburse federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Little is known about the effects of this shift on FQHC performance., Objective: To assess the association between APMs and the clinical performance, payer mix, risk profile, and financial sustainability of FQHCs., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed in 684 FQHCs (representing 37 states plus the District of Columbia) that continuously operated between January 2009 and December 2021. Data on payer mix (eg, type of insurance) and risk profile (eg, proportion of patients with chronic conditions) of FQHC patients were obtained from the Uniform Data System, and clinic-level financial data (eg, revenue) were obtained from Internal Revenue Service form 990 tax documents. Data were analyzed between November 2022 and October 2023., Exposure: Initial rollout of a value-based payment model (ie, an APM) for FQHCs, as offered by state Medicaid program, between January 2013 and December 2021., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 4 audited process measures of health care quality (cervical and colorectal cancer screening and body mass index [BMI] assessment for adults and children) and 2 intermediate health outcome measures (hypertension control and diabetes control). A difference-in-differences design was used with staggered implementation comparing FQHCs before and after the initial APM rollout vs contemporaneous changes in FQHCs in states without APMs., Results: A total of 684 FQHCs (8892 FQHC-years) that served 17 823 959 patients in 2021 (57.3% female) were included in the study. Among FQHCs in states implementing APMs, significant differential increases in 3 of the 4 process quality measures were observed compared with FQHCs in states that did not implement an APM: colorectal cancer screening (3.24 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 1.40-5.08 pp), adult BMI (3.19 pp; 95% CI, 0.70-5.68 pp), and child BMI (4.50 pp; 95% CI, 1.83-7.17 pp). There were also modest differential improvements in blood pressure control for individuals with hypertension (1.02 pp; 95% CI, 0.04-2.00 pp) and blood glucose control for individuals with type 2 diabetes (1.02 pp; 95% CI, 0.02-2.02 pp) compared with FQHCs in states without an APM. There was no evidence that the APM rollout was associated with clinics selecting healthier patients (-0.01 pp; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.19 pp) or stinting on care (-0.02 visits; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04 visits)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, introduction of Medicaid APM options for FQHCs was associated with modest, statistically significant increases in quality concentrated among FQHCs with APM models that explicitly incentivized quality. This finding suggests that APMs can be both a financially viable and a health-promoting model for reimbursement in the health care safety net.

Background: Adverse medical events affect 10% of American households annually, inducing a variety of harms and attitudinal changes. The impact of adverse events on perceived abandonment by patients and their care partners has not been methodically assessed., Objective: To identify ways in which providers, patients and families responded to medical mishaps, linking these qualitatively and statistically to reported feelings of abandonment and sequelae induced by perceived abandonment., Methods: Mixed-methods analysis of responses to the Massachusetts Medical Errors Recontact survey with participants reporting a medical error within the past 5 years. The survey consisted of forty closed and open-ended questions examining adverse medical events and their consequences. Respondents were asked whether they felt 'that the doctors abandoned or betrayed you or your family'. Open-ended responses were analysed with a coding schema by two clinician coders., Results: Of the 253 respondents, 34.5% initially and 20% persistently experienced abandonment. Perceived abandonment could be traced to interactions before (18%), during (34%) and after (45%) the medical mishap. Comprehensive post-incident communication reduced abandonment for patients staying with the provider associated with the mishap. However, 68.4% of patients perceiving abandonment left their original provider; for them, post-error communication did not increase the probability of resolution. Abandonment accounted for half the post-event loss of trust in clinicians., Limitations: Survey-based data may under-report the impact of perceived errors on vulnerable populations. Moreover, patients may not be cognizant of all forms of adverse events or all sequelae to those events. Our data were drawn from a single state and time period., Conclusion: Addressing the deleterious impact of persisting abandonment merits attention in programmes responding to patient safety concerns. Enhancing patient engagement in the aftermath of an adverse medical event has the potential to reinforce therapeutic alliances between patients and their subsequent clinicians., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: Patient experience narratives (narratives) are an increasingly important element of both measurement approaches and improvement efforts in healthcare. Prior studies show that narratives are considered by both clinicians and staff to be an appealing, meaningful, and credible form of evidence on performance. They also suggest that making concrete use of narratives within organizational settings to improve care can be complex and challenging. Our qualitative study was designed to explore how middle managers working in a health system's outpatient clinics value and use written narratives in their day-to-day work., Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with 20 middle managers working in 8 outpatient clinics. Interviews were fully transcribed, loaded into MAX-QDA software, and coded using thematic analysis techniques. Code reports were extracted and reanalyzed for subthemes related to the objectives of this paper., Results: Middle managers across sites described valuing narratives as a tool to: enable better patient experience assessment by augmenting data from patient experience scores; deepen understanding of and relationships with patients; provide insight about operational issues; identify areas for needed improvement and potential solutions; and facilitate strategic work. They reported using narratives for a range of activities related to their roles as supervisors, such as focusing attention on positive practices and needed improvements, promoting deeper group learning, motivating change, reinforcing sense of purpose for staff, recognizing staff strengths and training needs, and inspiring transformational thinking. Finally, interviewees reported numerous specific quality improvement projects (both short- and longer-term) that were informed by narratives-for example, by identifying an issue to be addressed or by suggesting a workable solution. Together, these interviews suggest a collective "narrative about narratives" woven by these organizational actors-a story which illustrates how narratives are highly relevant for how middle managers derive meaning from their work, put organizational values such as responsive service provision into practice, and enact their roles as supervisors., Conclusions: Our results add to the nascent literature a detailed description of how narratives can be used both as a tool for middle managers in their leadership and supervisory roles, and as a blueprint for improvement work within outpatient settings. They also illuminate why patient experience scores may improve when narrative data are collected and used. Finally, our results suggest that for middle managers, perhaps "nothing is more powerful than words" because narratives function as both an insight provider and a compelling tool that adds direction and meaning to workplace endeavors., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess whether an online interactive report designed to facilitate interpretation of patients' narrative feedback produces change in ambulatory staff learning, behavior at the individual staff and practice level, and patient experience survey scores., Data Sources and Setting: We studied 22 ambulatory practice sites within an academic medical center using three primary data sources: 333 staff surveys; 20 in-depth interviews with practice leaders and staff; and 9551 modified CG-CAHPS patient experience surveys augmented by open-ended narrative elicitation questions., Study Design: We conducted a cluster quasi-experimental study, comparing 12 intervention and 10 control sites. At control sites, narratives were delivered free-form to site administrators via email; at intervention sites, narratives were delivered online with interactive tools for interpretation, accompanied by user training. We assessed control-versus-intervention site differences in learning, behavior, and patient experience scores., Data Collection: Staff surveys and interviews were completed at intervention and control sites, 9 months after intervention launch. Patient surveys were collected beginning 4 months pre-launch through 9 months post-launch. We used control-versus-intervention and difference-in-difference analyses for survey data and thematic analysis for interview data., Principal Findings: Interviews suggested that the interface facilitated narrative interpretation and use for improvement. Staff survey analyses indicated enhanced learning from narratives at intervention sites (29% over control sites' mean of 3.19 out of 5 across eight domains, p < 0.001) and greater behavior change at staff and practice levels (31% and 21% over control sites' means of 3.35 and 3.39, p < 0.001, respectively). Patient experience scores for interactions with office staff and wait time information increased significantly at intervention sites, compared to control sites (3.7% and 8.2%, respectively); however, provider listening scores declined 3.3%., Conclusions: Patient narratives presented through structured feedback reporting methods can catalyze positive changes in staff learning, promote behavior change, and increase patient experience scores in domains of non-clinical interaction., (© 2023 Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Policy Points Patients' creative ideas may inform learning and innovation that improve patient-centered care. Routinely collected patient experience surveys provide an opportunity to invite patients to share their creative ideas for improvement. We develop and assess a methodological strategy that validates question wording designed to elicit creative ideas from patients. Health care organizations should consider how to report and use these data in health care delivery and quality improvement, and policymakers should consider promoting the use of narrative feedback to better understand and respond to patients' experiences., Context: Learning health systems (LHSs) have been promoted for a decade to achieve high-quality, patient-centered health care. Innovation driven by knowledge generated through day-to-day health care delivery, including patient insights, is critical to LHSs. However, the pace of translating patient insights into innovation is slow and effectiveness inadequate. This study aims to evaluate a method for systematically eliciting patients' creative ideas, examine the value of such ideas as a source of insight, and examine patients' creative ideas regarding how their experiences could be improved within the context of their own health systems., Methods: The first stage of the study developed a survey and tested strategies for elicitation of patients' creative ideas with 600 patients from New York State. The second stage deployed the survey with the most generative open-ended question sequence within a health care system and involved analysis of 1,892 patients' responses, including 2,948 creative ideas., Findings: Actionable, creative feedback was fostered by incorporating a request for transformative feedback into a sequence of narrative elicitation questions. Patients generate more actionable and creative ideas when explicitly invited to share such ideas, especially patients with negative health care experiences, those from minority racial/ethnic backgrounds, and those with chronic illness. The most frequently elicited creative ideas focused on solving challenges, proposing interventions, amplifying exceptional practices, and conveying hopes for the future., Conclusions: A valid and reliable method for eliciting creative ideas from patients can be deployed as part of routine patient experience surveys that include closed-ended survey items and open-ended narrative items in which patients share their experiences in their own words. The elicited creative ideas are promising for patient engagement and innovation efforts. This study highlights the benefits of engaging patients for quality improvement, offers a rigorously tested method for cultivating innovation using patient-generated knowledge, and outlines how creative ideas can enable organizational learning and innovation., (© 2023 The Authors. The Milbank Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Milbank Memorial Fund.)

Background: Enthusiasm has grown about using patients' narratives-stories about care experiences in patients' own words-to advance organizations' learning about the care that they deliver and how to improve it, but studies confirming association have not been published., Purpose: We assessed whether primary care clinics that frequently share patients' narratives with their staff have higher patient experience survey scores., Approach: We conducted a 1-year study of 5,545 adult patients and 276 staff affiliated with nine clinics in one health system. We used multilevel models to analyze survey data from patients about their experiences and from staff about exposure to useful narratives. We examined staff confidence in own knowledge as a moderator because confidence can influence use of new information sources., Results: Frequency of sharing useful narratives with staff was associated with patient experience scores for all measures, conditional on staff confidence in own knowledge ( p < .01). For operational measures (e.g., care coordination), increased sharing correlated with subsequently higher performance for more confident staff and lower performance or no difference for less confident staff, depending on measure. For relational measures (e.g., patient-provider communication), increased sharing correlated with higher scores for less confident staff and lower scores for more confident staff., Conclusion: Sharing narratives with staff frequently is associated with better patient experience survey scores, conditional on confidence in knowledge., Practice Implications: Frequently sharing useful patient narratives should be encouraged as an organizational improvement strategy. However, organizations need to address how narrative feedback interacts with their staff's confidence to realize higher experience scores across domains., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this paper, we examine whether patient narratives alter the impact of stereotyping on choice of primary care clinicians: in this case, the common presumption that female doctors will be more attentive to empathic relationships with patients. 1052 individuals were selected from a nationally representative Internet panel to participate in a survey experiment. Participants were given performance data about 12 fictitious primary care physicians, including a randomized set of narrative feedback from patients. We compared the choice of clinician made by participants who value bedside manner and were exposed to narratives in the experiment, compared to those valuing bedside manner who had not had this exposure. We estimated multivariate logistic regressions to assess whether exposure to patient comments that "disrupt" stereotypes influenced choice of physicians. Participants who saw patient comments and had previously reported caring about bedside manner had a 67% higher odds of choosing a female physician than those participants that did not see a patient comments, controlling for the content of the narratives themselves. When participants were exposed to patient comments that disrupt gendered stereotypes, they had a 40% lower odds of choosing a female physician. Simple exposure to patient narratives that do not clearly disrupt gendered stereotypes increased the likelihood of choosing a female clinician by priming attention to relational aspects of care. However, when the content of a sufficient proportion of patient comments runs counter stereotypes, even a minority of narratives is sufficient to disrupt gendered-expectations and alter choices., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Bhaumik, Schlesinger. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has left many suffering from long COVID, an episodic and debilitating chronic condition affecting people's ability to work and manage medical expenses. Though the Biden Administration has committed to conducting research and building support programs to alleviate the strain on those affected, in practice, static eligibility criteria for unemployment and disability benefits, patchy insurance coverage, and insufficient paid leave programs have left many people vulnerable. Given the magnitude of long COVID and the dearth to date of large-scale studies about its financial consequences, a focused qualitative analysis of lived experiences is warranted to understand and highlight gaps in the policy landscape., Methods: We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews from 2020 to 2022 with 25 people with experience of long COVID living predominately in the Midwest., Results: Our inductive analysis revealed ways people became financially exhausted by uncertain medical care costs and precarious employment that left them trying, often alone, to access benefits. People described both experiences with workplace benefits and attempts to access federal benefits to address unstable employment situations created by protracted and uncertain functional impairments., Discussion: We explore pre- and post-pandemic era unemployment, disability, and insurance policies and offer recommendations for better supporting people with long COVID., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

In this essay, we explore consequences of the systemic failure to track and to publicize the prevalence of patient-safety threats in American medicine. Tens of millions of Americans lose trust in medical care every year due to safety shortfalls. Because this loss of trust is long-lasting, the corrosive effects build up over time, yielding a collective maelstrom of mistrust among the American public. Yet no one seems to notice that patient safety is a root cause, because no one is counting. In addition to identifying the origins of this purblindness, we offer an alternative policy approach. This would call for government to transparently track safety threats through the systematic collection and reporting of patients' experiences. This alternative strategy offers real promise for stemming the erosion of trust that currently accompanies patient-safety shortfalls while staying consistent with Americans' preferences for a constrained government role with respect to medical care., (© 2023 The Hastings Center.)

Objective: To evaluate the measurement properties of a set of six items designed to elicit narrative accounts of pediatric inpatient experience., Data Sources: Data came from 163 participants recruited from a probability-based online panel of U.S. adults. Participants were family members of a child who had an overnight hospital stay in the past 12 months., Study Design: Cross-sectional survey with follow-up phone interviews., Data Collection/extraction Methods: Participants completed an online (n = 129) or phone (n = 34) survey about their child's hospitalization experience. The survey contained closed-ended items from the Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (Child HCAHPS) survey, followed by the six narrative items. Approximately 2 weeks after completing the survey, 47 participants additionally completed a one-hour, semi-structured phone interview, the results of which served as a "gold standard" for evaluating the fidelity of narrative responses. Qualitative content analysis was used to code narrative and interview responses for domains of patient experience and actionability., Principal Findings: The average narrative was 248 words (SD = 319). Seventy-nine percent of narratives mentioned a topic included in the Child HCAHPS survey; 89% mentioned a topic not covered by that survey; and 75% included at least one detailed description of an actionable event. Overall, there was 66% correspondence between narrative and interview responses. Correspondence was higher on the phone than in the online condition (75% vs. 59%)., Conclusions: Narratives elicited from rigorously designed multi-item sets can provide detailed, substantive information about pediatric inpatient experiences that hospitals could use to improve child and family experiences during pediatric hospitalization. They add context to closed-ended survey item responses and provide information about experiences of care important to children and families that are not included in quantitative surveys., (© 2023 RAND Corporation and The Authors. Health Services Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: Medicaid, the primary source of insurance coverage for disadvantaged Americans, was originally designed as a temporary safety-net program. No studies have used long-run data to assess the recent use of the program by beneficiaries., Objective: To assess patterns of short- and long-term enrollment among beneficiaries, using a 10-year longitudinal panel of Michigan Medicaid eligibility data., Design: Primary analyses assessing trends in Medicaid enrollment among cohorts of existing and new beneficiaries., Setting: Administrative records from Michigan Medicaid for the period 2011 to 2020., Participants: 3.97 million Medicaid beneficiaries., Measurements: Short- and long-term enrollment in the program., Results: The sample includes 3.97 million unique beneficiaries enrolled at some point between 2011 and 2020. Among a cohort of 1.23 million beneficiaries enrolled in 2011, over half (53%) were also enrolled in Medicaid in June 2020, spending, on average, two-thirds of that period (67%) on Medicaid. These beneficiaries, however, experienced substantial lapses in coverage, as only 25% were continuously enrolled throughout the period. Enrollment was less stable when assessed from the perspective of newly enrolled beneficiaries, of whom only 37% remained enrolled at the end of the study period., Limitation: Primary estimates from a single state., Conclusion: For many beneficiaries, Medicaid has served as their primary source of coverage for at least a decade. This pattern would justify increasing investments in the program to improve long-term health outcomes., Primary Funding Source: Self-funded.

The development of technologies for gene editing in the wild has the potential to generate tremendous benefit, but also raises important concerns. Using some form of public deliberation to inform decisions about the use of these technologies is appealing, but public deliberation about them will tend to fall back on various forms of heuristics to account for limited personal experience with these technologies. Deliberations are likely to involve narrative reasoning-or reasoning embedded within stories. These are used to help people discuss risks, processes, and fears that are otherwise difficult to convey. In this article, we identify three forms of collective narrative that are particularly relevant to debates about modifying genes in the wild. Our purpose is not to privilege any particular narrative, but to encourage people involved in deliberations to make these narratives transparent. Doing so can help guard against the way some narratives-referred to here as "crafted narratives"-may be manipulated by powerful elites and concentrated economic interests for their own strategic ends., (© 2021 The Hastings Center.)

In this article we consider how an online resource that publishes the findings and video, audio and written extracts from narrative interview studies has developed as an international collaboration, currently including 14 countries worldwide. In the two decades since the initiative was founded, the robust, national qualitative studies for DIPEx International have branched out from patient information and support to learning and teaching, insights and service improvement and cross-national comparisons. Embracing the challenge to reflect plural discourses of illness, health and care in societies that appear increasingly polarised, the DIPEx collaboration presents polyphonic perspectives that stand as potential counters to reductive dualities. As a result the collaboration has established a collection of unique, international resources that can be leveraged to promote understanding and learning from people's experiences of illness and care.

Background: How openly healthcare providers communicate after a medical error may influence long-term impacts. We sought to understand whether greater open communication is associated with fewer persisting emotional impacts, healthcare avoidance and loss of trust., Methods: Cross-sectional 2018 recontact survey assessing experience with medical error in a 2017 random digit dial survey of Massachusetts residents. Two hundred and fifty-three respondents self-reported medical error. Respondents were similar to non-respondents in sociodemographics confirming minimal response bias. Time since error was categorised as <1, 1-2 or 3-6 years before interview. Open communication was measured with six questions assessing different communication elements. Persistent impacts included emotional (eg, sadness, anger), healthcare avoidance (specific providers or all medical care) and loss of trust in healthcare. Logistic regressions examined the association between open communication and long-term impacts., Results: Of respondents self-reporting a medical error 3-6 years ago, 51% reported at least one current emotional impact; 57% reported avoiding doctor/facilities involved in error; 67% reported loss of trust. Open communication varied: 34% reported no communication and 24% reported ≥5 elements. Controlling for error severity, respondents reporting the most open communication had significantly lower odds of persisting sadness (OR=0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.60, p=0.006), depression (OR=0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.77, p=0.022) or feeling abandoned/betrayed (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48, p=0.004) compared with respondents reporting no communication. Open communication significantly predicted less doctor/facility avoidance, but was not associated with medical care avoidance or healthcare trust., Conclusions: Negative emotional impacts from medical error can persist for years. Open communication is associated with reduced emotional impacts and decreased avoidance of doctors/facilities involved in the error. Communication and resolution programmes could facilitate transparent conversations and reduce some of the negative impacts of medical error., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Patient narratives have emerged as promising vehicles for making health care more responsive by helping clinicians to better understand their patients' expectations, perceptions, or concerns and encouraging consumers to engage with information about quality. A growing number of websites incorporate patients' comments. But existing comments have fragmentary content, fail to represent less vocal patients, and can be manipulated to "manage" providers' reputations. In this article, we offer the first empirical test of the proposition that patient narratives can be elicited rigorously and reliably using a five-question protocol that can be incorporated into large-scale patient experience surveys. We tested whether elicited narratives about outpatient care are complete (report all facets of patient experience), balanced (convey an accurate mix of positive and negative events), meaningful (have a coherent storyline), and representative (draw fulsome narratives from all relevant subsets of patients). The tested protocol is strong on balance and representativeness, more mixed on completeness and meaningfulness.

Depression manifests in distinct ways across the life course. Recent research emphasizes how depression impedes development during emerging adulthood. However, our study-based on 40 interviews with emerging adults from multiple regions in the United States, analyzed following grounded theory-suggests a more complex narrative. Increasing experience with cycles of depression can also catalyze (a) mature perspectives and coping mechanisms that protect against depression's lowest lows; (b) deeper self-knowledge and direction, which in turn promoted a coherent personal identity; and (c) emergence of a life purpose, which fostered attainment of adult roles, skill development, greater life satisfaction, and enriched identity. Our synthesis reveals how depression during emerging adulthood can function at once as toxin, potential antidote, and nutritional supplement fostering healthy development. Our central finding that young adults adapt to rather than recover from depression can also enrich resilience theory, and inform both social discourse and clinical practice.

Problem: Exposing medical students to a broad range of illness experiences is crucial for teaching them to practice patient-centered care, but students often have limited interaction with patients with diverse illness presentations., Approach: The authors developed, implemented, and evaluated a self-directed online curriculum followed by a small-group discussion focused on depression education. The curriculum was based on a module created using the Database of Individual Patients' Experiences methodology. Findings from 40 interviews with young adults across the United States about their diverse experiences with depression were summarized online, and the summaries were illustrated by video, audio, and text clips. From August 2016 to April 2017, third-year students completed either this online curriculum and the usual clerkship curriculum or just the usual clerkship curriculum. These intervention and control groups completed pre- and postsurveys., Outcomes: Students in the intervention group reported that the online curriculum influenced their thinking about depression (51/56) nearly as often as they reported that seeing patients in clinic did (53/56). They also reported greater decreases in personal stigmatizing attitudes toward depression than did students in the control group as measured by the Depression Stigma Scale (5.75-4.02, intervention; 6.50-5.65, control; P = .004). In open-ended responses, students in the intervention group were 13 times more likely to describe key lessons from the curriculum that reflected patient heterogeneity., Next Steps: Future collaborations include implementing and evaluating this curriculum at other medical schools and developing additional versions based on other illness experiences.

We conducted a simulated clinician-choice experiment, comparing choices and decision-making processes of participants ( N = 688) randomized among four experimental arms: a conventional website reporting only quantitative performance information, a website reporting both qualitative (patient comments) and quantitative information, the second website augmented by a decision aid (labeling of patient comments), and the decision-aided website further augmented by the presence of a trained navigator. Introducing patient comments enhanced engagement with the quality information but led to a decline in decision quality, particularly the consistency of choices with consumers' stated preferences. Labeling comments helped erase the decline in decision quality, although the highest percentage of preference-congruent choices was seen in the navigator arm. Engagement with the quality information and satisfaction with choices available were likewise highest in the navigator arm. Findings held for high- and low-skilled decision makers. Thus, navigator assistance may be a promising strategy for equitably promoting higher quality choices in information-rich contexts.

This study investigates whether peer obesity is a driver of individual weight changes in public school children and whether the impact of peer effects changes as children age. Quantifying peer effects is important for understanding the social determinants of obesity and for planning effective school wellness policies. However, the extant empirical research on peer effects is limited due to difficulties in separating causal influences from confounding factors. This study overcomes some of these difficulties by using a within-school, across-cohort empirical design to separate confounding factors at the individual, school and school-grade level for over one million public school children. The results show that increases a one standard deviation increase in average classmate body mass index (BMI) leads to a modest but meaningful increase of 0.395 standard deviation increase in a child's own BMI. Peer-effects are highest (0.813) for children in Kindergarten and decline with age. These findings suggest that the critical time for school-grade level intervention may be in the earliest ages of childhood development., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (ioMRI) has led to significant advancements in neurosurgery with improved accuracy, assessment of the extent of resection, less invasive surgical alternatives, and real-time confirmation of targeting as well delivery of therapies. The costs associated with developing ioMRI units in the surgical suite have been obstacles to the expansion of their use. More recently, the development of hybrid interventional MRI (iMRI) units has become a viable alternative. The process of designing, developing, and implementing operations for these units requires the careful integration of environmental, technical, and safety elements of both surgical and MR practices. There is a paucity of published literature providing guidance for institutions looking to develop a hybrid iMRI unit, especially with a limited footprint in the radiology department., Methods: The experience of designing, developing, and implementing an iMRI in a preexisting space for neurosurgical procedures at a single institution in light of available options and the literature is described., Results: The development of the unit was accomplished through the engagement of a multidisciplinary team of stakeholders who utilized existing guidelines and recommendations and their own professional experience to address issues including physical layout, equipment selection, operations planning, infection control, and oversight/review, among others., Conclusion: Successful creation of an iMRI program requires multidisciplinary collaboration in integrating surgical and MR practice. The authors' aim is that the experience described in this article will serve as an example for facilities or neurosurgical departments looking to navigate the same process., Competing Interests: The corresponding author has a consulting agreement with Medtronic Inc and Abbott Scientific. All of the other authors certify that they have no conflicts of interest.

Policy Points Narratives about patients' experiences with outpatient care are essential for quality improvement because they convey ample actionable information that both elaborates on existing domains within patient experience surveys and describes multiple additional domains that are important to patients. The content of narrative feedback from patients can potentially be translated to improved quality in multiple ways: clinicians can learn from their own patients, groups of clinicians can learn from the experience of their peers' patients, and health system administrators can identify and respond to patterns in patients' accounts that reflect systemic challenges to quality. Consistent investment by payers and providers is required to ensure that patient narratives are rigorously collected, analyzed fully, and effectively used for quality improvement., Context: For the past 25 years, health care providers and health system administrators have sought to improve care by surveying patients about their experiences. More recently, policymakers have acted to promote this learning by deploying financial incentives tied to survey scores. This article explores the potential of systematically elicited narratives about experiences with outpatient care to enrich quality improvement., Methods: Narratives were collected from 348 patients recruited from a nationally representative Internet panel. Drawing from the literature on health services innovation, we developed a two-part coding schema that categorized narrative content in terms of (a) the aspects of care being described, and (b) the actionability of this information for clinicians, quality improvement staff, and health system administrators. Narratives were coded using this schema, with high levels of reliability among the coders., Findings: The scope of outpatient narratives divides evenly among aspects of care currently measured by patient experience surveys (35% of content), aspects related to measured domains but not captured by existing survey questions (31%), and aspects of care that are omitted from surveys entirely (34%). Overall, the narrative data focused heavily on relational aspects of care (43%), elaborating on this aspect of experience well beyond what is captured with communication-related questions on existing surveys. Three-quarters of elicited narratives had some actionable content, and almost a third contained three or more separate actionable elements., Conclusions: In a health policy environment that incentivizes attention to patient experience, rigorously elicited narratives hold substantial promise for improving quality in general and patients' experiences with care in particular. They do so in two ways: by making concrete what went wrong or right in domains covered by existing surveys, and by expanding our view of what aspects of care matter to patients as articulated in their own words and thus how care can be made more patient-centered. Most narratives convey experiences that are potentially actionable by those committed to improving health care quality in outpatient settings., (© 2019 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

For two decades, various initiatives have encouraged Americans to consider quality when choosing clinicians, both to enhance informed choice and to reduce disparities in access to high-quality providers. The literature portrays these efforts as largely ineffective. But this depiction overlooks two factors: the dramatic expansion since 2010 in the availability of patients' narratives about care and the growth of information seeking among consumers. Using surveys fielded in 2010, 2014, and 2015, we assessed the impact of these changes on consumers' awareness of quality information and sociodemographic differences. Public exposure to any quality information doubled between 2010 and 2015, while exposure to patient narratives and experience surveys tripled. Reflecting a greater propensity to seek quality metrics, minority consumers remained better informed than whites over time, albeit with differences across subgroups in the types of information encountered. An education-related gradient in quality awareness also emerged over the past decade. Public policy should respond to emerging trends in information exposure, establish standards for rigorous elicitation of narratives, and assist consumers' learning from a combination of narratives and quantified metrics on clinician quality.

Background: Public reports on healthcare quality typically include complex data. To lower the cognitive burden of interpreting these data, some report designers create summary, or roll-up, measures combining multiple indicators of quality into one score. Little is known about how the availability of roll-ups affects clinician choice., Objective: To determine how presenting quality scores at different levels of aggregation affects patients' clinician choices., Design: We conducted a simulated clinician-choice experiment, randomizing participants to three versions of a public reporting website and comparing their clinician choices. One version aggregated all clinician-level quality measures into roll-ups, the second provided disaggregated (drill-down) scores only, and the third offered both roll-ups and drill-downs., Participants: Five hundred fifty panelists drawn from a probability-based Internet panel., Main Measures: We assessed the amount of effort participants exerted by tracking the length of time spent on the website and the number of concrete actions taken on the website (e.g., clicking items). We evaluated decision quality by measuring whether participants selected a clinician who performed more poorly than others and incongruence between participants' stated preferences for dimensions of quality and their chosen clinician's performance on those dimensions., Key Results: Participants seeing drill-downs alone (mean = 14.9) or with roll-ups (mean = 19.2) took more actions than those who saw roll-ups alone (mean = 10.5) (ps < 0.05). However, participants seeing only drill-downs made poorer choices than those who saw roll-ups alone or with drill-downs. More participants seeing drill-downs chose a clinician who was outperformed (36.3% versus 23.4% [roll-up] and 25.6% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05) and made choices incongruent with stated preferences (51.2% versus 45.6% [roll-up] and 47.5% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05). The distinction between roll-up and drill-down was somewhat stronger for sicker participants., Conclusions: Our results suggest that roll-ups in healthcare quality reports, alone or as a complement to drill-downs, can help patients make better decisions for themselves.

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between states' expansion of Medicaid and county-level food insecurity, testing for the moderating effects of social multipliers., Methods: We estimated the effect of county/state Medicaid characteristics (baseline enrollment, enrollment changes, and expansion timing) on county-level food insecurity during two expansion periods (2009-2012; 2012-2014) using a pre-post design among expansion states to control for political culture., Results: Increased county Medicaid enrollment in early expansion states was associated with lower food insecurity in 2012 (b=-0.10%, p=.02). The impact of early expansion persisted into 2014 (b=-0.06%, p=.01), suggesting a social learning effect. Focusing on a single state (California) to control more fully for socio-political norms revealed larger social multiplier effects., Conclusions: Medicaid expansion was associated with reduced food insecurity, the most pronounced associations evident in counties with the largest Medicaid expansions. Cross-county variation may reflect both social learning and social norms, though evidence for the latter is inconsistent.

Health plans use selective physician networks to control costs while improving quality. However, narrow (limited) networks raise concerns about reduced access to and continuity of care. In the period 2010-15, the proportion of Medicaid managed care plans in fourteen states with narrow primary care physician networks-that is, the plans that employed 30 percent or less of those physicians in their market-declined from a peak of 42 percent in 2011 to 27 percent in 2015. On average, plans experienced a 12 percent annual turnover rate, with 34 percent of primary care physicians exiting within five years. Turnover was 3 percentage points higher in plans with narrow networks after one year, and 20 percentage points higher after five years, compared to turnover in plans with non-narrow networks. These findings suggest that efforts to maintain adequate physician networks must monitor not only the breadth of the networks, but also the continuity within them.

Background: Little is known about the usefulness of online ratings when searching for a hospital. We therefore assess the association between quantitative and qualitative online ratings for US hospitals and clinical quality of care measures., Methods: First, we collected a stratified random sample of 1000 quantitative and qualitative online ratings for hospitals from the website RateMDs. We used an integrated iterative approach to develop a categorization scheme to capture both the topics and sentiment in the narrative comments. Next, we matched the online ratings with hospital-level quality measures published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Regarding nominally scaled measures, we checked for differences in the distribution among the online rating categories. For metrically scaled measures, we applied the Spearman rank coefficient of correlation., Results: Thirteen of the twenty-nine quality of care measures were significantly associated with the quantitative online ratings (Spearman p = ±0.143, p < 0.05 for all). Thereof, eight associations indicated better clinical outcomes for better online ratings. Seven of the twenty-nine clinical measures were significantly associated with the sentiment of patient narratives (p = ±0.114, p < 0.05 for all), whereof four associations indicated worse clinical outcomes in more favorable narrative comments., Conclusions: There seems to be some association between quantitative online ratings and clinical performance measures. However, the relatively weak strength and inconsistency of the direction of the association as well as the lack of association with several other clinical measures may not enable the drawing of strong conclusions. Narrative comments also seem to have limited potential to reflect the clinical quality of care in its current form. Thus, online ratings are of limited usefulness in guiding patients towards high-performing hospitals from a clinical point of view. Nevertheless, patients might prefer different aspects of care when choosing a hospital.

Background: Little knowledge is available about the importance of hospital report cards in the US from the patients' perspective. It also remains unknown whether specific report cards with a stronger emphasis on clinical measures have a greater impact on hospital choice than general report cards that focus on online-derived ratings., Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the awareness and usage of hospital report cards as well as their impact on hospital choice in the US., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study by surveying a stratified online sample (N = 1332) to ensure representativeness to the US online population (February 2015)., Results: Overall, 75% of all respondents (mean age 45.4 years; 54% female) were aware of hospital report cards. Among these, 56% had used a report card to search for a hospital, and 80% of report card users stated having been influenced by a report card. Both the awareness and usage of general report cards were shown to be higher than for specific report cards. No significant differences could be detected regarding the impact between general or specific report cards on hospital choice., Conclusions: Our results indicate that hospital report cards play a considerable role among patients when searching for a hospital in the US; however, patients do not seem to have a preference regarding the type of report cards they use when selecting a hospital.

Parental attitudes shape play opportunities afforded to children in home, community, and school settings. This study presents evaluation of an intervention designed to enrich parent's conception of play and its relationship with socially valued skills and capacities. On the basis of data from 291 racially and ethnically diverse parents/caregivers of young children (median age between 3 and 6) attending an event in NYC, we find the intervention helped parents conceptualize play in complex ways and altered perceptions of its impact on children's current-but not future-lives. Multivariate analyses reveal the causal pathway for these changes as exposure to multiple play sites, rather than time at the event-a finding with direct implications for exposing parents to developmental science in community settings., (© 2017 The Authors. Child Development © 2017 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.)

Urie Bronfenbrenner and Ernest Boyer argued for leaving the laboratory to conduct rigorous developmental research in the real world where children are found-in the places they go. Contributions to this special issue meet Bronfenbrenner and Boyer's call while at the same time recognizing the continued importance of laboratory research. These articles range from a review of research on the arts to a language intervention in Senegal to large-scale dissemination and intervention projects designed to communicate the best developmental science to families, public agencies, and schools. Together these articles illustrate how we can study development in the world and enrich our work on the factors that promote development. Taking this path presents us with a set of additional hurdles to be addressed, such as how to communicate with the public and how to scale up our interventions in the face of diversity along many dimensions., (© 2017 The Authors. Child Development © 2017 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.)

Importance: State Medicaid programs have increasingly contracted with insurers to provide medical care services for enrollees (Medicaid managed care plans). Insurers that provide these plans can exit Medicaid programs each year, with unclear effects on quality of care and health care experiences., Objective: To determine the frequency and interstate variation of health plan exit from Medicaid managed care and evaluate the relationship between health plan exit and market-level quality., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort of all comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans (N = 390) during the interval 2006-2014., Exposures: Plan exit, defined as the withdrawal of a managed care plan from a state's Medicaid program., Main Outcomes and Measures: Eight measures from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set were used to construct 3 composite indicators of quality (preventive care, chronic disease care management, and maternity care). Four measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems were combined into a composite indicator of patient experience, reflecting the proportion of beneficiaries rating experiences as 8 or above on a 0-to-10-point scale. Outcome data were available for 248 plans (68% of plans operating prior to 2014, representing 78% of beneficiaries)., Results: Of the 366 comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans operating prior to 2014, 106 exited Medicaid. These exiting plans enrolled 4 848 310 Medicaid beneficiaries, with a mean of 606 039 beneficiaries affected by plan exits annually. Six states had a mean of greater than 10% of Medicaid managed care recipients enrolled in plans that exited, whereas 10 states experienced no plan exits. Plans that exited from a state's Medicaid market performed significantly worse prior to exiting than those that remained in terms of preventive care (57.5% vs 60.4%; difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.3% to 5.5%]), maternity care (69.7% vs 73.6%; difference, 3.8% [95% CI, 1.7% to 6.0%]), and patient experience (73.5% vs 74.8%; difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.6% to 1.9%]). There was no significant difference between exiting and nonexiting plans for the quality of chronic disease care management (76.2% vs 77.1%; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -2.1% to 4.0%]). There was also no significant change in overall market performance before and after the exit of a plan: 0.7-percentage point improvement in preventive care quality (95% CI, -4.9 to 6.3); 0.2-percentage point improvement in chronic disease care management quality (95% CI, -5.8 to 6.2); 0.7-percentage point decrease in maternity care quality (95% CI, -6.4 to 5.0]); and a 0.6-percentage point improvement in patient experience ratings (95% CI, -3.9 to 5.1). Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in exiting plans had access to coverage for a higher-quality plan, with 78% of plans in the same county having higher quality for preventive care, 71.1% for chronic disease management, 65.5% for maternity care, and 80.8% for patient experience., Conclusions and Relevance: Between 2006 and 2014, health plan exit from the US Medicaid program was frequent. Plans that exited generally had lower quality ratings than those that remained, and the exits were not associated with significant overall changes in quality or patient experience in the plans in the Medicaid market.

Objective: To explore the impact of hospital report card design and incorporation of patient narrative comments on consumers' choices of hospitals., Data Sources: Primary data collected from an online survey with 1,350 respondents in February, 2015., Study Design: A randomized 2 (narrative comments: yes, no) × 3 (design: representation of clinical performance in textual, star, numerical formats) between-subject online-based cross-sectional experiment., Principal Findings: In 51 percent of all cases, respondents selected the hospital with the best clinical results. Report cards with a numerical design induced choices more focused on clinical ratings (56.0 percent chose the highest rated hospital) than those with textual information (48.1 percent) or star ratings (47.3 percent) (p < .001). Report cards without narrative comments (49.7 percent) and with narratives (51.4 percent) were not associated with significant difference in selecting top-rated clinical hospitals (p = .376). But there were significant interactions affecting choice of hospitals among exposure to narratives, formatting of clinical performance, and respondents' education., Conclusions: Consumers have a difficult time synthesizing quality data in various formats. Hospital report cards continue to pose challenging choices, especially for those with limited education. Narrative comments in their earliest emerging forms do not seem to be altering hospital choice as much as the literature has suggested for other providers, but they may have consequential impact on the choices of certain subsets of consumers., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objectives: To understand the views of prominent organizations in the field of healthcare quality on the topic of reporting roll-up measures that combine indicators of multiple, often disparate, dimensions of care to consumers., Study Design: This study used a semi-structured, qualitative interview design., Methods: We conducted 30- to 60-minute semi-structured telephone interviews with representatives of 10 organizations that sponsor public healthcare quality reports and 3 national alliances representing multiple stakeholder groups. We conducted a thematic analysis of interview transcriptions to identify common issues and concerns related to reporting roll-up measures., Results: Among sponsors reporting roll-up measures, current practices for calculating and reporting these measures are diverse. The main perceived benefit of reporting roll-up measures is that they simplify large amounts of complex information for consumers. The main concern is the potential for consumers to misunderstand the measures and what associated roll-up scores communicate about provider performance. Report sponsors and national alliances feel that more guidance and research on the methods for producing and reporting scores for roll-up measures are needed., Conclusions: The results of the interviews elucidate the need for research focused on construction and reporting of roll-up measures. Studies are needed to determine if roll-up measures are indeed perceived by consumers as being less complex and easier to understand.

Objectives: To investigate whether content from patient narratives explains variation in patients' primary care provider (PCP) ratings beyond information from the closed-ended questions of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey and whether the relative placement of closed- and open-ended survey questions affects either the content of narratives or the CAHPS composite scores., Methods: Members of a standing Internet panel (N = 332) were randomly assigned to complete a CAHPS survey that was either preceded or followed by a set of open-ended questions about how well their PCP meets their expectations and how they relate to their PCP., Results: Narrative content from healthier patients explained only an additional 2% beyond the variation in provider ratings explained by CAHPS composite measures. Among sicker patients, narrative content explained an additional 10% of the variation. The relative placement of closed- and open-ended questions had little impact on narratives or CAHPS scores., Conclusion: Incorporating a protocol for eliciting narratives into a patient experience survey results in minimal distortion of patient feedback. Narratives from sicker patients help explain variation in provider ratings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

As contemporary health policy promotes evidence-based practices using targeted incentives, policy makers may lose track of vital aspects of care that are difficult to measure. For more than a half century, scholars have recognized that these latter aspects play a crucial role in high-quality care and equitable health system performance but depend on the potentially frail reed of providers' trustworthiness: that is, their commitment to facets and outcomes of care not easily assessed by external parties. More recently, early experience with pay for performance in health settings suggests that enhancing financial rewards for the measurable undermines providers' commitment to the unmeasurable, degrading the trustworthiness of their practices. Reformers have looked to revised professional norms or reorganized practice arrangements to bolster the intrinsic motivations required for trustworthiness. We suggest here that these responses are likely to prove inadequate. We propose that they be complemented by a renewed policy-making commitment to nonprofit ownership among health care providers, insurers, and integrated delivery systems. We identify some of the concerns raised in the past with ownership-based policies and propose a set of responses. If these are pursued in combination, they hold the promise of a sustainable ownership-based policy reform for the United States., (Copyright © 2016 by Duke University Press.)

Objective: To design a methodology for rigorously eliciting narratives about patients' experiences with clinical care that is potentially useful for public reporting and quality improvement., Data Sources/study Setting: Two rounds of experimental data (N = 48 each) collected in 2013-2014, using a nationally representative Internet panel., Study Design: Our study (1) articulates and operationalizes criteria for assessing narrative elicitation protocols; (2) establishes a "gold standard" for assessment of such protocols; and (3) creates and tests a protocol for narratives about outpatient treatment experiences., Data Collection/extraction Methods: We randomized participants between telephone and web-based modalities and between protocols placed before and after a closed-ended survey., Principal Findings: Elicited narratives can be assessed relative to a gold standard using four criteria: (1) meaningfulness, (2) completeness, (3) whether the narrative accurately reflects the balance of positive and negative events, and (4) representativeness, which reflects the protocol's performance across respondent subgroups. We demonstrate that a five-question protocol that has been tested and refined yields three- to sixfold increases in completeness and four- to tenfold increases in meaningfulness, compared to a single open-ended question. It performs equally well for healthy and sick patients., Conclusions: Narrative elicitation protocols suitable for inclusion in extant patient experience surveys can be designed and tested against objective performance criteria, thus advancing the science of public reporting., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: Patients' comments about doctors are increasingly available on the internet. The effects of these anecdotal accounts on consumers' engagement with reports on doctor quality, use of more statistically reliable performance measures, and ability to choose doctors wisely are unknown., Objective: To examine the effects of providing patient comments along with standardized performance information in a web-based public report., Design: Participants were randomly assigned to view 1 of 6 versions of a website presenting comparative performance information on fictitious primary care doctors. Versions varied by the combination of information types [Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), and patient comments] and number of doctors., Participants: A random sample of working-age adults (N=848) from an online panel representing the noninstitutionalized population of the United States., Main Measures: Time spent and actions taken on the website, probing of standardized measures, and decision quality (chosen doctor rated highest on quantifiable metrics, chosen doctor not dominated by another choice). Secondary outcomes were perceived usefulness and trustworthiness of performance metrics and evaluations of the website., Key Results: Inclusion of patient comments increased time spent on the website by 35%-42% and actions taken (clicks) by 106%-117% compared with versions presenting only CAHPS and HEDIS measures (P<0.01). It also reduced participants' attention to standardized measures (eg, percentage of time probing HEDIS measures dropped by 67%, P<0.01). When patient comments were present, fewer participants chose the doctor scoring highest on standardized metrics (44%-49% vs. 61%-62%, P<0.01)., Conclusions: Including patient comments in physician performance reports enhances consumers' engagement but reduces their attention to standardized measures and substantially increases suboptimal choices. More research is needed to explore whether integrated reporting strategies could leverage the positive effects of patient comments on consumer engagement without undermining consumers' use of other important metrics for informing choice among doctors.

Programs created under the Affordable Care Act to connect consumers to health care coverage represent an unprecedented public-sector investment. State-level implementation of these programs has varied greatly, making it possible to learn from differences in strategy and performance. In this article we assess the current state of Marketplace enrollment assistance, synthesizing evidence from published evaluations (largely derived from grey literature) and analyses of data from nationwide surveys of assisters. Synthesis of this evidence suggests that assister programs play a vital role supporting consumers in the new Marketplaces, particularly when assisters maintain extended ongoing relationships with consumers; assisters come from and are situated within communities they serve; local programs are well coordinated; and postenrollment issues can be addressed. Stable funding commitments, year-round employment, and enriched training were identified as crucial long-run strategies for building a more professional assister workforce and stronger infrastructure., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Objective: To assess what is known about the relationship between patient experience measures and incentives designed to improve care, and to identify how public policy and medical practices can promote patient-valued outcomes in health systems with strong financial incentives., Data Sources/study Setting: Existing literature (gray and peer-reviewed) on measuring patient experience and patient-reported outcomes, identified from Medline and Cochrane databases; evaluations of pay-for-performance programs in the United States, Europe, and the Commonwealth countries., Study Design/data Collection: We analyzed (1) studies of pay-for-performance, to identify those including metrics for patient experience, and (2) studies of patient experience and of patient-reported outcomes to identify evidence of influence on clinical practice, whether through public reporting or private reporting to clinicians., Principal Findings: First, we identify four forms of "patient-reported information" (PRI), each with distinctive roles shaping clinical practice: (1) patient-reported outcomes measuring self-assessed physical and mental well-being, (2) surveys of patient experience with clinicians and staff, (3) narrative accounts describing encounters with clinicians in patients' own words, and (4) complaints/grievances signaling patients' distress when treatment or outcomes fall short of expectations. Because these forms vary in crucial ways, each must be distinctively measured, deployed, and linked with financial incentives. Second, although the literature linking incentives to patients experience is limited, implementing pay-for-performance systems appears to threaten certain patient-valued aspects of health care. But incentives can be made compatible with the outcomes patients value if: (a) a sufficient portion of incentives is tied to patient-reported outcomes and experiences, (b) incentivized forms of PRI are complemented by other forms of patient feedback, and (c) health care organizations assist clinicians to interpret and respond to PRI. Finally, we identify roles for the public and private sectors in financing PRI and orchestrating an appropriate balance among its four forms., Conclusions: Unless public policies are attentive to patients' perspectives, stronger financial incentives for clinicians can threaten aspects of care that patients most value. Certain policy parameters are already clear, but additional research is required to clarify how best to collect patient narratives in varied settings, how to report narratives to consumers in conjunction with quantified metrics, and how to promote a "culture of learning" at the practice level that incorporates patient feedback., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Health care consumers often make choices that are imperfectly informed and inconsistent with their expressed preferences. Past research suggests that these shortcomings become more pronounced as choices become more complex, through either additional options or more performance metrics. But it is unclear why this is true: Consumer choice remains a "black box" that research has scarcely illuminated. In this article, we identify four pathways through which complexity may impair consumer choice. We examine these pathways using data from an experiment in which consumers (hypothetically) selected a primary care physician. Some of the loss of decision quality accompanying more complex choice sets can be explained by consumers' skills and decision-making style, but even after accounting for these factors, complexity undermines the quality of decision making in ways that cannot be fully explained. We conclude by discussing implications for report designers, sponsors, and policy makers aspiring to promote consumer empowerment and health care quality., (© The Author(s) 2013.)

Efforts to engage consumers in the use of public reports on health care provider performance have met with limited success. Fostering greater engagement will require new approaches that provide consumers with relevant content at the time and in the context they need to make a decision of consequence. To this end, we identify three key factors influencing consumer engagement and show how they manifest in different ways and combinations for four particular choice contexts that appear to offer realistic opportunities for engagement. We analyze how these engagement factors play out differently in each choice context and suggest specific strategies that sponsors of public reports can use in each context. Cross-cutting lessons for report sponsors and policy makers include new media strategies such as a commitment to adaptive web-based reporting, new metrics with richer emotional content, and the use of navigators or advocates to assist consumers with interpreting reports., (© The Author(s) 2013.)

Background: The proliferation of multi-unit for-profit dialysis chains in the ESRD industry has raised concerns for patient quality of care including access to renal transplantation therapy (RTT). The effect of dialysis facility chain status on RTT is unknown., Methods: Data from the United States Renal Data System were used to identify 4,465 dialysis facilities and 56,714 dialysis patients who started hemodialysis in 2006. Patients were followed from initiation of hemodialysis in 2006 to placement on the renal transplant waiting list or to December 31, 2009. The role of dialysis facility chain status (affiliation, size, and ownership) on placement on the renal transplant waiting list was evaluated by multi-level mixed-effect regression models that account for clustering within facilities., Results: Patients from for-profit chain facilities, compared to nonprofit chain facilities, were 13% (95% CI 0.77-0.98) less likely to be waitlisted. In contrast, among nonchains, facility ownership did not influence likelihood of being waitlisted. There was also a marginally significant difference in waiting list placement by chain size: large chains compared with mid or small chains were 8% (95% CI 0.84-1.00) less likely to place patients on the waiting list. After adjustment for patient and facility characteristics, dialysis facility chain affiliation (chain-affiliated or not) was not found to be independently associated with the likelihood of placement on the transplant waitlist., Conclusion: Dialysis chain affiliation expands previously observed ownership-related differences in placement on the waiting list. For-profit ownership of dialysis chain facilities appears to be a significant impediment to access to renal transplants.

IMPORTANCE The impact of the substantial growth in for-profit hospices in the United States on quality and hospice access has been intensely debated, yet little is known about how for-profit and nonprofit hospices differ in activities beyond service delivery. OBJECTIVE To determine the association between hospice ownership and (1) provision of community benefits, (2) setting and timing of the hospice population served, and (3) community outreach. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional survey (the National Hospice Survey), conducted from September 2008 through November 2009, of a national random sample of 591 Medicare-certified hospices operating throughout the United States. EXPOSURES For-profit or nonprofit hospice ownership. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Provision of community benefits; setting and timing of the hospice population served; and community outreach. RESULTS A total of 591 hospices completed our survey (84% response rate). For-profit hospices were less likely than nonprofit hospices to provide community benefits including serving as training sites (55% vs 82%; adjusted relative risk [ARR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.59-0.76]), conducting research (18% vs 23%; ARR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46-0.99]), and providing charity care (80% vs 82%; ARR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80-0.96]). For-profit compared with nonprofit hospices cared for a larger proportion of patients with longer expected hospice stays including those in nursing homes (30% vs 25%; P = .009). For-profit hospices were more likely to exceed Medicare's aggregate annual cap (22% vs 4%; ARR, 3.66 [95% CI, 2.02-6.63]) and had a higher patient disenrollment rate (10% vs 6%; P &lt; .001). For-profit were more likely than nonprofit hospices to engage in outreach to low-income communities (61% vs 46%; ARR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44]) and minority communities (59% vs 48%; ARR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.38]) and less likely to partner with oncology centers (25% vs 33%; ARR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.44-0.80]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Ownership-related differences are apparent among hospices in community benefits, population served, and community outreach. Although Medicare's aggregate annual cap may curb the incentive to focus on long-stay hospice patients, additional regulatory measures such as public reporting of hospice disenrollment rates should be considered as the share of for-profit hospices in the United States continues to increase.

Racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to use higher-quality hospitals than whites. We propose that a higher level of information-related complexity in their local hospital environments compounds the effects of discrimination and more limited access to services, contributing to racial/ethnic disparities in hospital use. While minorities live closer than whites to high-volume hospitals, minorities also face greater choice complexity and live in neighborhoods with lower levels of medical experience. Our empirical results reveal that it is generally the overall context associated with proximity, choice complexity, and local experience, rather than differential sensitivity to these factors, that provides a partial explanation of the disparity gap in high-volume hospital use., (© The Author(s) 2014.)